Key messages

• There is no clear evidence showing that any particular frequency of changing a person's position (repositioning) or any particular position (e.g. tilting the bed to a 30-degree angle) works better than any other to prevent bedsores (pressure injuries) in adults in hospital or care homes.

• Some repositioning frequencies and positions may reduce the costs of care, but this evidence is limited and uncertain.

• This is the second update of a review published in 2014. Research is still limited. Most studies are small and not well designed.

What are bedsores?

Bedsores (also called pressure injuries, pressure ulcers, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers) happen when people are not able to move much, or spend a lot of time sitting or lying down, such as elderly people or those who are very ill. When a body part presses against a mattress or chair for a long time, the skin rubs over bony parts of the body, like the heels, tailbone, hips, back, and the back of the head. Blood flow is reduced and skin and tissue break down.

How are bedsores prevented?

Changing a person's position can improve blood flow to areas that press against the bed or other surfaces, and it can have other benefits, such as increased comfort and mental well-being. The approaches used to prevent bedsores include:

• repositioning: moving or turning someone regularly, for example, every 2, 3, or 4 hours;

• position: placing someone in different positions, for example, raising the head of the bed or tilting the body;

• micromovement: frequent, small position changes made for people who cannot move (e.g. during surgery); and

• specially adapted mattresses and dressings.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to know:

• which repositioning approaches (e.g. frequencies (how regularly someone is moved) and positions) are best for preventing bedsores;

• their effects on healthcare costs; and

• their effects on health-related quality of life, pain, and patient satisfaction.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that involved adults without bedsores who were receiving care in any hospital, long-term, or aged healthcare facility. The studies investigated which approaches to repositioning were most effective for preventing bedsores.

We summarised the findings and assessed our confidence in the results, based on how the studies were designed and conducted.

What did we find?

We found three new studies published since the 2020 version of the review. This 2026 updated review includes 11 studies and two cost evaluations.

The studies took place in China, Belgium, North America, Iran, and the UK. Most studies were in hospitals (intensive care units, operating theatres, wards); three were in nursing homes. The studies involved 4462 adults aged 18 to 90 years.

Repositioning

• We combined results from four studies comparing different repositioning frequencies. It is unclear whether changing a patient’s position every 2 versus 4 hours, every 2 versus 3 hours, every 3 versus 4 hours, or every 4 versus 6 hours makes any difference to the chance of developing bedsores (4 studies, 2175 people).

• One study tested a device worn by patients that electronically tracks their position and feeds that information back to nurses. Nurses in one group got visual reminders from the sensor to turn the patient every two hours, while nurses in the other group did not get reminders and turned patients based on their own judgement. The visual warnings provided by the device probably reduce the chance of getting bedsores (1 study, 1312 people).

Position

• The effect of 30° tilt, 3-hourly repositioning overnight compared to 90° tilt, 6-hourly repositioning overnight on developing bedsores is unclear (2 studies, 252 people).

• Raising the head of the bed by 30° compared to 45° may have no effect on bedsores (1 study, 80 people), but the evidence is unclear.

• Lying face down (prone) with 'lung recruitment manoeuvres' (a procedure to help open up the lungs) may result in more bedsores than lying face up (1 study, 116 people).

Micromovement

• Micromovement may reduce bedsores (2 studies, 477 people).

Cost-effectiveness

• One study estimated that repositioning costs are lower per resident per day with 4-hourly compared to 2-hourly repositioning, mostly due to reduced nursing time.

• Another study estimated that repositioning every 3 hours with a 30-degree tilt costs less than standard care (repositioning every 6 hours with a 90-degree tilt).

Other measures

• No studies reported the other measures we were interested in.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

Our confidence in the evidence is low or very low. Most studies were small or poorly designed. Information about cost-effectiveness was very limited. Health-related quality of life, pain, and patient satisfaction were not reported at all.

As the evidence does not show the best way to prevent pressure injuries, how often to change someone's position should be based on the person's medical condition, personal preferences, comfort, and how much they can move themselves.

How up to date is this review?

This is an update of a review published in 2014 and updated in 2020. The evidence is current to 7 August 2025.

Key messages

• Taking an oral (by mouth) iron preparation may increase iron stores in the blood compared to not taking an oral iron preparation.

• The higher iron in the blood meant more people could donate that otherwise may have been deferred (stopped from donating because of low iron levels).

• More people taking iron tablets may experience unwanted effects like gut problems while taking the tablets, at least initially, compared to people not taking iron tablets.

What is iron supplementation, and how can it help with blood donation?

Low iron is a common cause of deferral (stopped from donating) in people wishing to donate blood. If iron removed from the body through blood donation is not replaced, then donors may become iron deficient. All donors are screened at each visit for low iron levels. Iron can usually be replenished through a healthy diet, but it may take a long time. Iron supplementation using tablets or injections may reduce this time and help donors return to being able to donate much sooner.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if giving iron tablets or an injection of iron to potential blood donors would improve the iron stores in their blood, and reduce the chance of them being deferred (stopped) from donating because they had too little iron in their blood.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that compared giving iron supplements (as tablets, an injection, or an infusion (into a vein)) with getting no iron supplementation, as well as comparing different types of iron and different doses of iron. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence based on factors such as study methods and sizes.

What did we find?

We found 8 new studies, for a total of 38 studies (7475 people). Iron was most commonly given as daily tablets (orally), with only five studies looking at other methods (injections or infusions directly into the blood).

• Iron tablets may increase the iron stored in the blood when taken over a few weeks or months compared to not taking iron tablets. This probably allowed more people to donate at their next attempt (lower deferral rates) (7 studies, 1647 people for deferral).

• More people taking iron tablets experienced unwanted effects, mostly gut problems such as stomach pain, constipation (hard stools), and diarrhoea (loose watery stools), compared to those not taking iron tablets (8 studies, 2641 people).

• There was no difference in non-gut problems (like headaches) between people who took iron tablets and those who didn't, and those that took the iron tablets found they had less "weakness" than those not taking the tablets.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

Our confidence in the evidence ranged from high to very low. In cases where our confidence was limited, this was because some of the studies were very old or very small (not many people were studied), and sometimes the studies did not report on everyone they said they would, and it was possible that people in the studies knew which treatment they were getting. We wanted to look at how different types of iron or different doses worked differently, as well as the impact on men and women separately, and whether they already had low iron stores in their blood, but not all studies gave us this information, so the answers are not as clear as we would like.

How up-to-date is the evidence?

This review updates our previous review, last published in 2014. The evidence is current to January 2025.

Key messages

• Compared with placebo (dummy treatment), antibiotics may reduce back pain slightly and may have some beneficial effect in improving disability in the short term in people with low back pain linked to damaged vertebral endplates (the layer between the disc and the vertebra) and disc rupture. It is unclear if antibiotics increase the risk of unwanted events and serious unwanted events compared with placebo.

• We need more high-quality, long-term studies to confirm the benefits and harms of antibiotics. Future studies should explore different types of antibiotics, alternative ways to deliver them (like injections), and populations in various world regions to account for antibiotic resistance.

What are low back pain and radicular pain?

Low back pain is pain or discomfort in the area between the bottom of the ribs and the crease under the buttocks. Lumbar radicular pain, sometimes known as sciatica or radiculopathy, refers to pain that radiates down the leg from the lower back. The most common cause of radicular pain is irritation of a nerve root in the lumbar spine (the bottom five vertebrae). Low back and radicular pain can seriously limit the ability of people to work, enjoy hobbies, and stay independent.

How are low back pain and radicular pain treated?
There are many treatments available for low back pain and radicular pain, including education, self-care, painkillers, and physiotherapy. Some studies have suggested that low back pain and radicular pain may stem from an infection in a spinal disc caused by the bacteria Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), which is commonly found on human skin and is best known for its role in acne. For this reason, some experts think that antibiotic treatment for C. acnes (e.g. penicillin) could improve low back pain, radicular pain, or both.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if antibiotics were better than placebo (dummy treatment) or other treatments for reducing pain and back-related disability, and whether these antibiotics had any unwanted effects, in people with low back pain, radicular pain, or both.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated antibiotics compared with placebo in people with low back pain, radicular pain, or both. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes.

What did we find?

We included three studies with 402 people (mostly women); the average ages ranged between 45 years and 51 years. The studies took place in Denmark, Belgium, and Norway.

Main results

Compared with placebo, antibiotics may improve back pain slightly after 12 to 14 weeks in people with low back pain linked to disc rupture and damage to the vertebral endplate (the layer between the disc and the vertebra). Two studies measured this outcome in 255 participants. On average, people who had antibiotics rated their pain as 50.6 out of 100, compared with 59 out of 100 among those who had placebo.

Compared with placebo, antibiotics may result in a small to moderate improvement in back-related disability after 12 to 14 weeks in people with low back pain linked to disc rupture and damage to the vertebral endplate (2 studies, 255 participants). On average, people who had antibiotics rated their back-related disability as 45.2 out of 100, compared with 55.7 out of 100 among those who had placebo (2 studies, 255 participants).

We don't know if people taking antibiotics are more likely to experience any unwanted effects compared with those taking placebo (2 studies, 262 participants). In the studies, 76 out of every 100 people taking antibiotics reported having unwanted effects, compared with 49 out of 100 people taking placebo, but we are very uncertain about these results.

We don't know if people taking antibiotics are more likely to experience serious unwanted effects compared with those taking placebo (2 studies, 262 participants). In the studies, three out of every 100 people taking antibiotics reported serious unwanted effects, compared with two out of every 100 people taking placebo, but we are very uncertain about these results.

The unwanted effects reported by people taking antibiotics included abdominal pain, diarrhoea, increased flatulence or burping, rash, and fungal infection.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

We have little confidence in the evidence for the effects of antibiotics on back pain and back-related disability, and we are not confident in the evidence related to unwanted effects and serious unwanted effects. The main issues were that the results varied widely, and the studies tested only one type of antibiotic in people from a single region (Scandinavia).

How up to date is this evidence?

The evidence is current to 26 August 2025.

Key messages

• In people with stomach cancer, there may be little to no difference in survival and the chance of the cancer coming back whether the spleen is removed or kept during surgery to remove the stomach. We are unsure about the effects of removing or keeping the spleen on death shortly after surgery.

• Removing the stomach and the spleen probably leads to more people having complications after the operation. However, we are very uncertain whether removing the spleen changes the chance of needing another operation, or the length of hospital stay. We found no evidence about quality of life.

• Future studies should investigate people with tumors in different locations and at different stages of severity. They should look at quality of life and unwanted effects.

What is stomach cancer?

Stomach cancer is a disease in which the cells forming the inner lining of the stomach become abnormal and start to divide uncontrollably, forming a mass called a tumor.

How is stomach cancer managed?

Stomach cancer in the upper third of the stomach is often treated by performing an operation to remove the stomach (total gastrectomy). Removing the spleen at the same time as the stomach also removes the lymph nodes near the spleen. The more lymph nodes that can be removed, the more accurately doctors can judge what stage a cancer has reached, which can indirectly improve survival by identifying people who can benefit from additional therapies. The routine surgical removal of the spleen during total gastrectomy is controversial: it may potentially benefit people in terms of survival; conversely, it is also possible that it may have no benefits and may be associated with unwanted effects.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if removing the spleen during surgery for stomach cancer is better or worse than leaving it in place. We looked at the effects on survival, chance of cancer coming back, death shortly after surgery, complications after surgery, need for another operation, length of hospital stay, and quality of life.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that compared removing the spleen versus keeping the spleen during total gastrectomy. Studies could take place anywhere, and be published at any time and in any language. We compared and summarized the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and study sizes.

What did we find?

We found five studies with 1002 adults undergoing surgery for stomach cancer. The studies were conducted in Asia and South America and were published between 1985 and 2017. On average, the proportion of women in the studies was between 20% and 30%. Four studies with 908 participants reported the tumor stage. Three studies with 736 participants reported the tumor depth and type. The studies reported the following outcomes: survival, chance of cancer coming back, death shortly after surgery, complications after surgery, need for another operation, and length of hospital stay.

Main results

Compared with keeping the spleen, removing the spleen during surgery for stomach cancer probably leads to more people having complications after surgery. It is unclear if removing the spleen has an effect on death shortly after surgery, the chance of needing another operation, or the length of hospital stay. Removing the spleen may make little to no difference to survival and the chance of cancer coming back. None of the studies reported quality of life.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

We are not confident in the evidence because it is possible that people in the studies were aware of what treatment they were getting, and not all the studies provided data about everything that we were interested in. In addition, some studies did not clearly report how they were conducted, and there are not enough studies to be certain about the results of our outcomes.

How up to date is this evidence?

The evidence is current to February 2025.

Key messages

• Choosing to fix the patch with glue or a self-sticking patch compared to using stitches, tacks, or staples may make little to no difference to the risk of long-term pain and the hernia coming back.

• Fixing the patch with glue or a self-sticking patch may reduce the risk of blood collecting under the skin compared with using stitches, tacks, or staples.

• We generally have little or very little confidence in the results, meaning the results should be interpreted carefully.

What is a groin hernia?

A groin hernia happens when abdominal content, like part of the intestine or fat, pushes through a weak spot in the groin. A hernia causes a bulge and sometimes pain. Groin hernias are common and typically require surgery as they do not go away without surgery.

How is a groin hernia treated?

A groin hernia can be treated by a keyhole operation where surgeons make small cuts in the abdomen and use special tools to fix the groin hernia from inside the abdomen. Surgeons place a patch over the weak area in the groin to support it. The patch can be attached using glue or special self-sticking patches (named ‘non-penetrating patch fixation’ in this review) or using sharp tools like stitches, tacks, or staples (named ‘penetrating patch fixation’ in this review).

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out whether non-penetrating or penetrating patch fixation was more effective in reducing pain, preventing the hernia from coming back, and avoiding other problems during and after surgery.

What did we do?

We looked for studies where adults with groin hernias were randomly assigned to non-penetrating or penetrating patch fixation during keyhole surgery. We combined the results of these studies and assessed how trustworthy the evidence was.

What did we find?

We found 35 studies involving 4329 adults. About half of the participants had non-penetrating patch fixation, and the other half had penetrating patch fixation. Most participants were men aged between 37 and 66 years. The most common type of hernia was a first-time-occurring hernia on one side of the groin. Most studies compared fixing the patch with glue compared to using staples or tacks. The studies were of varying size, with between 30 and 600 people each, and follow-up time varied from a few days up to 56 months after surgery. Most of the included studies were from Asia or Europe.

What are the main results?

Non-penetrating patch fixation may make little to no difference to the risk of long-term pain and the hernia coming back after surgery. Non-penetrating patch fixation may reduce the risk of blood collecting under the skin in the groin compared with penetrating patch fixation, but we are not confident in this evidence. We do not know if the type of patch fixation has an effect on short-term pain, infections of the patch, how long the surgery takes, or if it prolongs how quickly people return to normal activities.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

A limitation is that we have little confidence in the evidence. This is mainly due to studies not reporting all relevant information or because there are not enough studies to be certain about the results of the outcomes.

How up to date is this evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 14 November 2024.

Key messages

• Blue light-supported resection (surgical removal) of the bladder may have little to no effect on the chance of cancer returning in people at low risk (risk for cancer returning), but may reduce the chance for those at medium and high risk.

• Blue light-supported resection of the bladder probably has little to no effect on the chance of cancer getting worse in people at low risk (for cancer getting worse) or medium risk, but may reduce the chance for those at high risk.

Why is a special visualization method (blue light) used during resection of the bladder?

In people who might have bladder cancer, the possible tumor is cut from the inner bladder wall using a special instrument inserted through the tube that carries urine from the bladder to outside the body (the urethra) into the bladder. However, it is sometimes difficult to tell what is normal bladder tissue and what is cancer. In order to see the tumor better and remove it completely, a liquid (contrast agent) is put into the bladder through a thin tube (catheter). During surgery, a special light is used to make the cancer cells light up red.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using blue light-enhanced resection of the bladder is better than using white light during bladder surgery for people with non-muscle (superficial) invasive bladder cancer. We looked at whether it affects:

• the time it takes for cancer to return (recurrence);

• the time it takes for cancer to get worse (progression);

• whether people lived for longer;

• serious complications during surgery;

• mild complications during surgery;

• and if it had any unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies which randomly assigned people with bladder cancer to have either blue light-enhanced resection of the bladder or white light-based resection of the bladder. We compared and summarized the results of these studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes.

What did we find?

We identified 17 studies comparing the use of blue light-enhanced resection of the bladder to white light-based resection of the bladder. These studies involved a total of 4890 participants in the review. Blue light-enhanced resection of the bladder may have little to no effect on the risk of recurrence in people at low risk, but may reduce the risk of recurrence in those at medium and high risk. Blue light supported resection of the bladder probably has little to no effect on the risk of progression in people at low risk, may have little or no effect on the risk of progression in people at medium risk, but may reduce the risk of progression in those at high risk. We also found that blue light may have little to no effect on the number of mild or serious surgical complications, the risk of death from bladder cancer over time, any unwanted effects and mild surgical complications.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The most significant limitations of the evidence considered in this review stem from the quality of the included studies. In some studies, the treatments were not delivered exactly as planned, making it harder to compare the groups fairly. Other studies had missing information, and the amount or reasons for missing data differed between treatment groups, which could affect the results. In addition, some studies may have reported only selected outcomes while leaving out others, creating a risk that the findings do not provide a complete picture of the intervention's effects.

How up to date is this evidence?

This review updates our previous review. The evidence is up to date to March 2026.

Key messages

• Telepharmacy may help people take their medicines as prescribed, and may reduce both systolic blood pressure (the pressure in your arteries when your heart beats) and diastolic blood pressure (the pressure between heartbeats). It probably makes little or no difference to blood sugar control (HbA1c).

• We are very uncertain about its effects on patients’ satisfaction with care. Telepharmacy may affect medicine‐related problems (such as side effects or interactions), but findings varied because some interventions aimed to detect more problems while others aimed to reduce harms from medicines. No studies reported the number of deaths or unwanted effects from telepharmacy, so potential harms remain uncertain.

• Studies did not show consistent effects on quality of life, hospital admissions, hospital emergency department visits, or healthcare costs. Most studies involved only a few people or had limitations, and the studies varied in delivery and content.

What is telepharmacy?

Telepharmacy is the use of phone calls, video calls, mobile apps, or other electronic communication to provide pharmacy services without meeting in person. It can include advice about medicines, help with taking medicines as prescribed, and monitoring of health. Telepharmacy can make it easier for people to get support from a pharmacist, especially if they live far from a clinic or have difficulty travelling. It may also help pharmacists detect medicine‐related problems and adjust treatments when needed.

What are long-term health conditions?

Long-term health conditions, sometimes called chronic conditions, are health problems that can usually be controlled but not cured. They last for three months or longer, and may get worse over time. People with long-term conditions often require ongoing care. Examples include diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, and heart disease. These conditions can affect a person’s quality of life and may lead to serious complications if not well managed. People with long‐term conditions often need regular check‐ups, tests, and support to take their medicines correctly.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out whether telepharmacy, compared with usual care, helps people take their medicines as prescribed, and improves patients’ satisfaction with care, medicine‐related problems, asthma control, blood pressure, and blood sugar control (measured using the HbA1c test) in people with long‐term conditions in outpatient settings. We also looked at other possible effects, such as quality of life, admissions to hospital, emergency department visits, and healthcare costs.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that compared pharmacist‐led telepharmacy with usual care for people with long-term conditions in outpatient settings. We included high-quality studies, known as randomised controlled trials. We summarised the results and rated our confidence in the evidence, considering factors such as study design, number of participants, and consistency of results.

What did we find?

We found 21 trials including 5440 people, which were performed in different countries and settings (e.g. pharmacy, hospital). Most trials compared telepharmacy with usual face-to-face care for people with long‐term conditions in outpatient settings. In the included studies, usual care generally referred to standard face-to-face care without additional telepharmacy support. Most studies lasted 12 months or less.

In people with long-term conditions in outpatient settings, compared with usual care:

• telepharmacy may improve how well people take their medicines as prescribed (10 studies, 2978 people), that is, as instructed by their healthcare providers;

• the evidence is very uncertain about whether telepharmacy improves patients’ satisfaction with their care (3 studies, 422 people);

• telepharmacy may affect problems such as medicine side effects or interactions (5 studies, 547 people), but findings varied because some studies aimed to detect more problems while other studies aimed to reduce harms;

• telepharmacy may reduce systolic blood pressure (the pressure in your arteries when your heart beats) and diastolic blood pressure (the pressure between heartbeats) (5 studies, 1254 people); but

• telepharmacy probably makes little or no difference to blood sugar control (HbA1c levels) (5 studies, 1771 people).

No studies reported the number of deaths or unwanted effects from telepharmacy, so potential harms remain uncertain. We have more confidence in some findings (such as blood sugar control) than in others (such as patients' satisfaction with their care). For some outcomes, future research could change what we know.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

Our confidence in the findings was reduced because many studies involved only a few people, had problems with how they were carried out, or produced results that did not always agree. Evidence about problems caused by medicines came only from descriptions given by patients, as we were unable to group and analyse data from different studies. The studies used telepharmacy interventions that varied in their content, and how or how often they were given, which may have influenced the results.

How up to date is this evidence?

The evidence is up to date to December 2025.

Key messages

• Current evidence does not allow firm conclusions regarding the safety of treatment with insulin-like growth factor-1, a protein that helps blood vessels in the retina of the eye grow normally, in premature babies born before term and weighing less than 1500 grams.

• Current evidence does not allow firm conclusions regarding the effect of insulin-like growth factor-1 treatment for prevention of retinopathy of prematurity, a disease in premature babies where blood vessels in the back of the eye do not grow normally.

• So far, studies of insulin-like growth factor-1 in preterm infants may not detect important benefits or side effects.

What are retinopathy of prematurity and insulin-like growth factor-1?

Retinopathy of prematurity is a common disease in babies born prematurely with a birth weight less than 1500 grams. It is caused when blood vessels in the back of the eye do not grow normally. Retinopathy of prematurity can cause vision problems or blindness.

Insulin-like growth factor-1 is a protein that helps blood vessels in the retina of the eye grow normally during pregnancy. When babies are born too early, they may not have enough insulin-like growth factor-1 in their bodies and this may cause blood vessels in the retina to grow abnormally, leading to the development of retinopathy of prematurity.

How is retinopathy of prematurity treated?

Currently, retinopathy of prematurity is treated with lasers that burn the retina in the back of the baby's eye to stop stimulation of the abnormal blood vessels that may damage vision, or with medications that are injected into the eye to temporarily stop the abnormal blood vessels from continuing to grow and damage vision.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if giving insulin-like growth factor-1 to premature babies prevents or treats retinopathy of prematurity. We also wanted to find out if giving insulin-like growth factor-1 to premature babies causes any serious side effects or problems, or had an effect on any other medical issues caused by prematurity, like brain bleeding or lung disease of prematurity.

What did we do?

We searched for research studies that compared treatment with insulin-like growth factor-1 either to a placebo (a ‘dummy’ or sham treatment) or to standard care, which is usual neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) care that does not normally include giving insulin-like growth factor-1, in premature babies who were at risk of developing retinopathy of prematurity. We compared and summarized the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence based on study methods and size.

What did we find?

We included two studies with a total of 140 premature babies. The included studies tested insulin-like growth factor-1 treatment in premature babies and followed their outcomes through five to six years of age.

We found that the results of current studies do not allow for a definite conclusion regarding its efficacy for preventing or treating retinopathy of prematurity. The results of current studies also do not allow for a definite conclusion regarding the safety of insulin-like growth factor-1 treatment in premature babies, including harmful effects or death.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

Our confidence in the evidence is very low, and the results of further research could differ from the results of this review. Two main factors reduced our confidence in the evidence. First, we only identified two studies of insulin-like growth factor-1 treatment in premature infants and not many infants participated in them. This means there may not have been enough participants who received treatment to determine whether it actually made a difference. Second, the studies we found had problems with their design or the way they were conducted, which may affect the accuracy of their results.

How up to date is this evidence?

The evidence is up-to-date to March 2025.

Key messages

• In people with mild memory and thinking problems (mild cognitive impairment (MCI)) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, laboratory-produced medicines (anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies) that target and remove potentially damaging build-ups of amyloid proteins in the brain, probably result in little to no difference in the decline in memory functioning and thinking ability, or in how severe dementia symptoms are, compared with placebo (sham treatment) 18 months after the start of treatment.

• Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies probably cause more brain swelling and tiny (micro) bleeds than placebo. They do not increase other serious unwanted effects or deaths compared with placebo.

• Successful removal of amyloid proteins from the brain does not seem to be associated with clinically meaningful improvements in people with MCI or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. Future research on disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease should focus on other treatments.

What is Alzheimer’s disease?

In Alzheimer’s disease, brain cells die following the build-up of proteins (called amyloid plaques). Alzheimer’s disease affects people’s memory and thinking abilities. Symptoms are usually mild to begin with and do not interfere with everyday life. This is called ‘mild cognitive impairment’ (MCI). Over time, it can progress to mild dementia, where memory and thinking difficulties are serious enough to interfere with everyday activities. About 15% of people with MCI will develop dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease within two years. It is the most common form of dementia among older people.

What are anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies?

Antibodies are made by the body as a defence against disease. They can also be produced in a laboratory for use as a medical treatment. Anti-amyloid antibodies are designed to target the amyloid proteins that cause plaques due to Alzheimer’s disease, and remove them from the brain. They are ‘monoclonal’ because they only target amyloid proteins. Removing amyloid proteins from the brain may slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to know if anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies are an effective medicine for people with MCI or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. We evaluated whether they slowed down:

• the decline in memory and thinking;

• the decline in ability to manage everyday activities; and

• the worsening of dementia symptoms.

We also wanted to know if they caused any unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated one or more anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies to treat people with MCI or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, compared with placebo (sham treatment that does not contain any medicine but looks identical to the medicine being tested and is delivered in the same way).

We summarised the results of the studies, and rated our confidence in the evidence, considering aspects such as study sizes and methods.

What did we find?

We found 17 studies that were carried out in different countries and involved 20,342 people. The average age across studies was from 70 to 74 years. All studies were funded by companies that produced the anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

Main results

After 18 months of treatment, anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies:

• may make little to no difference to how bad people’s dementia symptoms are (9 studies, 8053 people);

• probably make little to no difference in the decline in memory and thinking ability (13 studies, 9895 people) or the ability to manage everyday activities (3 studies, 3478 people);

• may result in a small improvement in more complex everyday tasks, such as shopping, managing finances, taking medication, and using transportation (1 study, 1252 people);

• probably result in a small increase in the occurrence of brain swelling. For every 1000 people using monoclonal antibodies, 119 developed brain swelling compared with only 12 of 1000 people using placebo (11 studies, 13,595 people);

• may result in a small increase in microbleeds in the brain (3 studies, 4308 people);

• do not increase other serious unwanted effects as defined by the study authors (9 studies, 11,904 people); and

• do not increase deaths from any cause (7 studies, 9733 people).

What are the limitations of the evidence?

Our confidence in the evidence is limited for two reasons. Firstly, people who received monoclonal antibodies had more brain swelling and microbleeds than people receiving placebo. However, most studies did not separate people with symptoms of brain swelling and microbleeds from those in whom these effects were only visible with a scan. This reporting gap leaves patients without the information they need to understand the seriousness of potential unwanted effects. Secondly, the results came from studies that did not last very long. These are important limitations in the evidence for people with Alzheimer’s disease, who need to know the longer-term benefits and unwanted effects of medicines.

We found six ongoing studies. The review's conclusions may change as new results become available.

How up to date is this evidence?

The evidence is current to 7 August 2025.

Key messages

• Children with low language proficiency (LLP) (difficulties) may meet problems with speaking, understanding language, and literacy (ability to read) as they grow older. They also have psychological and social difficulties later in life, but the evidence is less certain for these outcomes than for learning outcomes.

• It is unclear whether early language skills affect later independence and participation in everyday life, as the evidence is very limited and uncertain.

• We need more long-term, high-quality studies with large samples and comparison groups to understand which children are most affected and how early language difficulties affect later outcomes, particularly independence and participation in daily life, where current evidence is limited.

Low language proficiency in children

Children with LLP have difficulties with speaking, understanding, or using language in early childhood. These difficulties can affect how children learn to read, communicate with others, and take part in everyday activities at school and at home. For some children, early language difficulties improve over time. For others, they continue as children grow older and may affect later learning, social relationships, and independence.

What did we want to find out?
We wanted to see whether children with low language skills at ages four to eight years old continue to have problems with language, reading, and quality of life as they grow up.

What did we do?
We searched for studies of children between the ages of four and eight years who were identified as having LLP. These children either scored below average on language tests or had a clinical diagnosis. We analysed outcomes related to language and reading, as well as five areas of quality of life:

• psychological well-being (mental health)

• physical health

• independence

• social relationships (making friends)

• participation in everyday life such as work and community life

We combined the results of the studies using statistical methods (meta-analysis) and took into account that some outcomes were related to each other.

What did we find?

We found 80 studies (that took place in North America or Europe) which followed children with LLP into adolescence or adulthood and reported outcomes from 15 different groups of children (cohorts), with about 28,800 children in total.

Children with LLP are likely to continue:

• having difficulties with language and reading into adolescence and adulthood.

These difficulties were noticeable and consistent across studies. Children with LLP may also be at higher risk of:

• mental health problems, such as depression or anxiety

• difficulties with making friends

• less independence in daily life

We do not have enough evidence to know whether they have problems with physical health.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

Some studies in this review had limitations that affect how confident we can be in the results.

• We are highly confident that children with LLP have difficulties with literacy (ability to read) when growing up.

• We are moderately confident that children with LLP have difficulties with language when growing up, because some of the children in the studies dropped out. However, our results were generally consistent.

• We are moderately confident that children with LLP experience more mental health problems (e.g. problems with making friends) and a lack of participation in everyday life when growing up. Our confidence is only moderate because of small studies (for participation) or variation between studies. Generally, patterns were consistent but further evidence may change our results.

• We have low confidence that children with LLP have difficulties with becoming independent when growing up, because of very few studies. Further evidence is likely to change our results.

• We are not confident that children with LLP have difficulties with physical health when growing up. The evidence is very uncertain.

The way low language proficiency was described and measured sometimes varied between studies. Some outcomes — especially physical health, independence, and participation in daily life — were only reported in a few studies. Some studies were small or included only certain groups of children. Important factors, such as non-verbal IQ or other health conditions, were not always reported. The results also varied between studies, which means that not all children with LLP are affected in the same way. Overall patterns are consistent, but some findings should be interpreted carefully.

How up to date is this evidence?

The evidence is up-to-date to March 2025.

What are the benefits and risks of different ways of accessing the hip joint during partial hip replacement surgery? Key messages The evidence is still developing, and future studies may change our conclusions. We are not confident that one surgical approach (way of accessing the hip joint) compared to another leads to a different outcome for performing daily tasks, health-related quality of life, mobility or functional status, mortality, or pain, within the first four months after surgery. What is hip hemiarthroplasty? Hip hemiarthroplasty, or partial hip replacement, is surgery that...

Do programs with multiple behavioral components improve the regular usage of eye pressure-lowering medications in people with glaucoma? Key messages Multifaceted behavioral programs that are intended to improve regular usage of eye pressure-lowering eye drops in people with high eye pressure or diagnosed with glaucoma can include a combination of reminders, multimedia education, in-person education, dosing aids, mindfulness-based stress reduction, monetary incentives, simplification of drop regimen, and doctor education. How well these programs work is unclear; some data show favorable...

Does using multiple tests in combination ('parallel testing') result in better accuracy for detecting TB in the lungs (pulmonary tuberculosis) in children than using a single test? Key messages - Using both respiratory samples and stool for low-complexity automated testing (LC-aNAATs) increased the number of pulmonary tuberculosis cases detected in children (with and without HIV). - Adding the lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan test (LF-LAM) identified additional pulmonary tuberculosis cases in children with HIV. - Parallel testing may lead to more misdiagnoses of children who do...

Do dietary and activity strategies help prevent obesity in children aged 2 to 4 years? Key messages Combining strategies for changing diet and physical activity levels in children aged 2 to 4 years to help prevent overweight and obesity may reduce body mass index (BMI) slightly in the long term (after 15 months). There was very little information about whether the strategies resulted in serious adverse events (e.g. injuries), but none of the strategies appeared to result in any serious harm to the children. Future research should carry out obesity prevention strategies in community settings,...

In adults and adolescents with HIV, is using two different rapid tests together ('parallel testing') to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) disease more accurate than using only one? This review looked at adults and adolescents with HIV who have signs and symptoms of tuberculosis (TB) disease. Diagnosis can be done using respiratory samples (fluids or mucus collected by coughing or using tubes to remove fluid from the throat, lungs, or stomach) or urine. We wanted to know whether using two rapid tests together - an automated test on a respiratory sample (LC-aNAAT) and a urine strip test...

Does removing more or fewer lymph nodes improve outcomes in women who have endometrial cancer? Key messages Not removing pelvic lymph nodes (which are part of the immune system and in the lower tummy) probably does affect survival compared with removing all pelvic lymph nodes in women without obvious disease spread and may reduce the risk of disease coming back. Not removing pelvic lymph nodes, or removing only the first draining lymph nodes (called sentinels), probably greatly reduces the risk of developing swelling in the legs after surgery compared with removing all pelvic nodes, or...

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for treating premenstrual syndrome (PMS) Review question What are the benefits and risks of using medication known as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists in the management of premenstrual syndrome (PMS)? Key messages • We found reliable evidence that GnRH agonists without add-back improve PMS symptoms compared to placebo, but also that menopausal side effects are common, and women taking GnRH agonists without add-back are more likely to stop their treatment than women taking placebo. • We are moderately confident that...

Does using hormonal contraception increase a woman's risk of gettingHIV? Does using hormonal contraception increase a woman's risk of getting HIV? Key messages DMPA (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate) injections likely result in little to no difference in the risk of getting HIV compared to the copper intrauterine device (IUD). The levonorgestrel implant (LNG) likely results in little to no difference in the risk of getting HIV compared to the copper IUD. DMPA injections likely slightly increase the risk of getting HIV compared to LNG implants. We are not certain about the effect of...

Does community care navigation (where a clinician helps guide patients through healthcare systems) reduce unplanned hospitalisations for ‘at-risk’ individuals? Key messages • People who receive community care navigation assistance are probably slightly less likely to be admitted to hospital for unplanned reasons in the first year after care navigation than those who do not receive this type of assistance. • We need more studies, with better reporting, to identify the types of people, settings and ways of delivering community care navigation that are likely to deliver the most benefit and to...

Are there differences in benefits and harms among regional pain management techniques in women undergoing breast cancer surgery? Key messages Overall, we found that different pain blocks were similar for managing pain after breast cancer surgery. Complication rates were low among all pain block techniques. What is regional analgesia, and how does it work? Regional analgesia is a pain block technique used in breast cancer surgery. It involves injecting pain-numbing medicine near specific nerves in the breast area to block pain signals during and after surgery. Unlike opioids, which affect the...